[TOareaFan]

planning practices. Although transit is well provided, the built form is incredibly hostile to anything but driving. Driving is convenient, generally congestion free, and very fast. Built form is primarily low density, large lot detached with lots of easy parking at every destination. There is no real reason not to own an automobile, and use it for all of your trips. Densities are low, roads are wide, and destinations far apart.

Look at this image: this is roughly 6 square km of Brampton. There is an express bus along Queen street on the southern portion of the area, but there is not a single apartment use in the entire image. Retail is provided in 2 suburban plazas in the northwest and southeast corners of the image. Nothing but large, detached houses, 6 lane roads, and insurmountable distances for anything but a car. Oh, and none of this existing when Places To Grow was put in place.

View attachment 128717

Without Street names it is hard to tell what 6 sq km that is. Is it Mississauga Rd on the west, stretching to McLaughlin in the east? And north from Queen? If so you may have picked the only 6 sq km west of, say, Torbram that includes Queen and doesn’t have apartments in it.....was that on purpose perhaps?

There are many reasons (that have been discussed elsewhere) why the condo boom of the last 15 years essentially missed Brampton.

 

[innsertnamehere]

And the prime reason is the very strong supply of single detached auto dependent housing. Why buy a condo if a house costs barely more.

 

[TOareaFan]

And the prime reason is the very strong supply of single detached auto dependent housing. Why buy a condo if a house costs barely more.

Sure and other forms of housing (Brampton sees a very large share of its new housing in the form of townhouses)......so, yes, the availability of ground oriented housing (new and existing) at reasonable pricing means it is very difficult to make economic sense of any significant condo development.

 

[innsertnamehere]

and that availability perpetuates auto reliancy as it comes in the form of very auto dependent design. Townhouses are still very large lotted with a garage and lots of parking available in private driveways, located generally far from commercial as overall densities are not high enough to support urban grained retail. That supply is too abundant.

 

[TOareaFan]

and that availability perpetuates auto reliancy as it comes in the form of very auto dependent design. Townhouses are still very large lotted with a garage and lots of parking available in private driveways, located generally far from commercial as overall densities are not high enough to support urban grained retail. That supply is too abundant.

If you ran for mayor on a banning growth platform you would win in a landslide!

 

[innsertnamehere]

If you ran for mayor on a banning growth platform you would win in a landslide!

Its not a matter of banning growth.. the issues arise from the base levels of the planning process, and how much land the municipality designates for urban expansion (in the case of brampton.. all of it within their borders). The municipality sees the growth targets mandated by the province, looks at its previous market for housing, and extrapolates. Tons of land is designated for subdivisions, subdivisions get built, the pattern continues. If the municipality said "hey - lets designate less land and instead direct it at apartments and intensification" - less land would be designated. Perhaps they increase the minimum densities of these lands to reflect that of the rest of the GTA. next thing you know, there is a market for apartments. There is less sprawl, and Brampton Transit is doing even better than it is currently.

 

[TOareaFan]

^or, people who currently consider moving to Brampton precisely because ground oriented housing is still available decide “if I am going to live in a condo anyway I will do it somewhere else”.....and the land just goes undeveloped.

Having the cheapest ground oriented housing prices in the GTA has been the rocket fuel for Brampton’s growth. Taking that away might be good/better planning......but it may not achieve your goal of a taller/denser city.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Don't look at "automobiles", look at "people".

See this link to Streetsblog USA about

London’s Protected Bike Lanes Move People 5 Times More Efficiently Than Car Lanes

 

[johntauren]

Also....raw statistics....,Brampton accounting for 25% of the “new” commuters may just be a reflection of where growth in the GTA is. Mississauga hardly grew st all between the last two census counts (something like 7k ppl total in 5 years) while Brampton continued to see a lot of growth.

Mississauga doesn't have much actual physical room to grow.
There are still many square kilometres of undeveloped and developing land in Brampton that wasn't there a few years ago. Brampton is growing north and west, along Mississauga Rd and north of Mount Pleasant Go are areas. Most of it is positioned along well served bus routes.

 

[jeicow]

What is "other method"? (= neither active transport, nor public transit, nor driving) What's left? Private helicopter? Swan boats?

School bus is the usual suspect.

 

[nfitz]

What is "other method"? (= neither active transport, nor public transit, nor driving) What's left? Private helicopter? Swan boats?

Private transit.

Company and building shuttle buses. Private boat taxis. For that matter, personal motor boat. Heck, with condos and offices/commercial sometimes in the same building, there must be someone commuting by elevator.

Taxis and ubers may be a big one.

 

[innsertnamehere]

^or, people who currently consider moving to Brampton precisely because ground oriented housing is still available decide “if I am going to live in a condo anyway I will do it somewhere else”.....and the land just goes undeveloped.

Having the cheapest ground oriented housing prices in the GTA has been the rocket fuel for Brampton’s growth. Taking that away might be good/better planning......but it may not achieve your goal of a taller/denser city.

Markham did exactly what I described and is still meeting its growth targets including lots of condos. 10 years ago Markham was king of the new build lowrise housing.. not so much any more. They sat down to do their urban expansion lands needs, and chose to minimize it. Now they have a strong condo market with a developing downtown and an urban area that is much easier to service. I bet that 25% of new GTA car trips didn't come from Markham, that is for sure.

 

[TOareaFan]

Here is my last comment on the subject.

As I suspected, the fact that 25% of the new car commutes come from Brampton appears to just be because Brampton accounts for such a large percentage of the population growth in the 905/commuter shed.

This tweet shows that even though Brampton accounts for a large share of the new car commutes.....the modal split in Brampton commutes has shifted (ever so slightly) away from the car.

https://twitter.com/_DivyeshM/status/936412477318840320

 

[aquateam]

Interesting that cars as a form of commuting are now officially a minority in the city. That is a pretty important milestone. I'm amazed at the growth in transit use, even in the suburbs.

Also incredible that 1/4 of new car commuters in the GTA are in Brampton. That municipality is incredibly suburban.

Also....raw statistics....,Brampton accounting for 25% of the “new” commuters may just be a reflection of where growth in the GTA is. Mississauga hardly grew st all between the last two census counts (something like 7k ppl total in 5 years) while Brampton continued to see a lot of growth.

Here is my last comment on the subject.

As I suspected, the fact that 25% of the new car commutes come from Brampton appears to just be because Brampton accounts for such a large percentage of the population growth in the 905/commuter shed.

This tweet shows that even though Brampton accounts for a large share of the new car commutes.....the modal split in Brampton commutes has shifted (ever so slightly) away from the car.

https://twitter.com/_DivyeshM/status/936412477318840320

This illustrates a basic point about sustainable development that needs to be driven home:

You can spend untold billions trying to coax suburbanites out of their cars and not budge transit mode share in the GTA, just because all the growth is happening in the suburbs.

Or you can allow more development in transit-supportive areas where infrastructure already exists and make huge strides without building a kilometer of rapid transit (which is exactly what happened in Toronto, since not a single kilometer of subway opened between 2011 and 2016).

It's the difference between running on a treadmill or standing on a moving walkway.

For all the talk about the Big Move, subways, RER, billions and billions of investment, the fight for sustainable development is built on ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT. If you want to fight for sustainable development, you shouldn't be shouting for subways, you should be shouting for ending restrictions against development in areas where transit exists.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The Province need to ban Bramptons. Well, specifically Brampton-style suburban sprawl. We can’t, one one hand be talking about transit and intensification, while at the same time continuing to let Brampton sprawl out.